Multi-tier dispute resolution clauses are provisions in contracts that provide for distinct stages, involving separate procedures, for dealing with and seeking to resolve disputes. Multi-tier dispute resolution is used in Russian practice. But it must be recognised that Russian procedural legislation in support of ADR is still in the making. The rules of law governing pre-trial settlement of disputes have undergone many changes recently. Nonetheless, the legislature has been undecided for some time on the precise categories of dispute in respect of which a mandatory claim procedure or protocol should be established. The lawmaker has therefore revised the law in a disorderly fashion and that has generated caused intense criticism from the professional community. The main aim of pre-trial dispute regulation in Russia is to reduce the number of cases submitted to the courts. However, the backlog of cases before the courts continues to be as it was before the implementation of the most recent legislative amendments and the pre-trial settlement of disputes still remains mostly formal insofar as procedure is concerned (whether entered into as a result of mandatory requirements under the law or settled out of court by the parties). This article will start with an overview of the Russian judicial system. It will then review the institutions mentioned above, as well as analyse modern judicial practice in their application. It will conclude with practical recommendations for the improvement of pre-trial dispute resolution in Russia.

Multi-tier dispute resolution, a combination of mediation and arbitration or litigation, has recently been gaining in importance in international business transactions. While arbitration has the advantages of being confidential, professional and effective across borders owing to the 1958 New York Convention, mediation, geared towards amicable settlements, is time- and cost-efficient and supportive of preserving commercial relationships. Both methods can complement each other in ‘med-arb’, ‘arb-med’ or ‘arb-med-arb’. This chapter discusses cardinal issues surrounding multi-tier dispute resolution in Japan, particularly the enforcement of agreements to mediate as a condition precedent to arbitration or litigation, and the methods of combining mediation and arbitral procedures. At the same time, this contribution sheds light on recent developments and efforts being made in Japan to enhance international arbitration and mediation. This trend will soon bring about legislative reforms and may possibly result in the ratification of the 2019 Singapore Convention on Mediation.

The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), established in 1996, investigates and seeks to resolve disputes arising in connection with Hong Kong’s anti-discrimination ordinances. Its complaint-handling process involves recourse to conciliation, investigation and litigation. The EOC thus provides a hybrid multi-tier dispute resolution service. If conciliation fails, the EOC may investigate and eventually assist a person to pursue in court a complaint which is thought to merit further action. This chapter asks how the EOC can maintain neutrality and confidentiality when discharging its respective functions of conciliator, investigator and litigator in the same matter, without becoming entangled in actual or potential conflicts of interest. It examins how similar institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere have sought (or not) to resolve the tension in their roles when handling discrimination complaints. It then discusses recommendations and their underlying rationale for reconciling the EOC’s seemingly conflicting roles, in order to effectively resolve discrimination complaints and bridge the long-standing gap in public perception.

Contributors to this book have discerned a welcome trend towards the greater use of multi-tier dispute resolution (MDR). But they have also identified the most problematic form of MDR as that where the same person acts initially as mediator and then, if mediation is unsuccessful, as arbitrator (‘med-arb’). Despite this, med-arb has significant advantages. It is likely to be cheaper than other modes of MDR and its mediation component enables parties to ventilate their genuine concerns and thereby tailor the resolution of their disputes to their real needs. This chapter considers ways of mitigating med-arb’s difficulties so that parties may fully reap its advantages. It discusses how to make med-arb agreements enforceable; how to balance the informality of mediation with the due process requirements of arbitration; and how to ensure that the outputs of med-arb, whether a mediated settlement agreement or an arbitral award, can be enforced.